Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I picked up a Model 54 on an impulse buy- the price was right and the urge was present. I already load for the 30-06 and I just flat out liked it; the action is pretty glassy, so home it came. Probably a 60-70% gun. I’ve tried looking up information (prior to this buy) and there just isn’t much out there (or I’m not searching correctly). I suppose because no records are available. Anyway does anyone know what/ where the most accurate DOM listing is? SN# 11755 puts it at 1927 based on what I’ve seen but I haven’t pulled the stock off yet to see if there’s a barrel date- probably this weekend. When was the Schnabel forend discontinued (mine has one)? A lot of receiver rings are tapped for a mount but not tapped on the receiver bridge- is that standard and was there a scope mount that used the peep sight holes? Mine has the Lyman peep installed but also has a flip up two piece rear sight; no hood on the front sight. Anyway, just thought I’d try to start a topic and hopefully learn something about the Model 54.
Technically, the glass is always full; half liquid, half air....
WACA #10293
Ron,
Based on the information in Roger Rule’s book, your new (old) Model 54 was manufactured in 1927. I have one just like it (also a 1927).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
David Bichrest has written a book on the Model 54 if you are looking for more information.
You can find his book information and contact info in the WACA store
https://winchestercollector.org/store/
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
rwsem said
When was the Schnabel forend discontinued (mine has one)?
Don’t know when or why it was discontinued, but it was the BEST thing about the 54! (Almost made up for the BB-gun trigger guard.)
The Stith scope mount attached in the rear to the factory receiver sight holes & in the front to the rear sight dovetail. Holes in the ring weren’t used at all.
clarence said
rwsem said
When was the Schnabel forend discontinued (mine has one)?Don’t know when or why it was discontinued, but it was the BEST thing about the 54! (Almost made up for the BB-gun trigger guard.)
I agree, I am a sucker for the Schnabel forend also. That is one of the reasons the Winchester Model 56 .22 Sporter is my favorite rifle also.
Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
clarence- thanks for the info on the scope mount. I have never heard of the Stith brand of mount. I guess because I really like iron sights on the older firearms. I learned something- thank you.
JWA- I’ll pick up David’s book to learn more.
Technically, the glass is always full; half liquid, half air....
WACA #10293
Stith scope mounts will not work on a M54 unless the bolt handle is relieved/altered or the Stith Mount itself is highly modified and a scope with a very long eye relief is used.
JWA said I agree, I am a sucker for the Schnabel forend also. That is one of the reasons the Winchester Model 56 .22 Sporter is my favorite rifle also.
Though it was the standard forearm/forend shape on tens of thousands of guns before WWI, modern attempts to reproduce it always get it wrong, making it much too thick, blocky, & ugly. Where did the idea of replacing it with a piece of black plastic (as on M70 SG) come from? The mind of a cost-cutter, undoubtedly.
Tedk said
Stith scope mounts will not work on a M54 unless the bolt handle is relieved/altered or the Stith Mount itself is highly modified and a scope with a very long eye relief is used.
What about mounting the scope so the eyepiece just clears the bolt handle? This is what was done to mount a Noske on a M70 I have, even though Redfield mounts were used. On low power scopes like Noskes & Lyman Alaskans, there’s enough eye-relief to make this possible.
clarence said
JWA said I agree, I am a sucker for the Schnabel forend also. That is one of the reasons the Winchester Model 56 .22 Sporter is my favorite rifle also.
Though it was the standard forearm/forend shape on tens of thousands of guns before WWI, modern attempts to reproduce it always get it wrong, making it much too thick, blocky, & ugly. Where did the idea of replacing it with a piece of black plastic (as on M70 SG) come from? The mind of a cost-cutter, undoubtedly.
It probably came from the same type of mind that added a useless white spacer between the butt plate and stock.
I completely agree about the original graceful Schnabels, sadly that art form has been lost to modern stock designers.
Best Regards,
WACA Life Member #6284 - Specializing in Pre-64 Winchester .22 Rimfire
Hi rwsem-
We discussed the difficulty of mounting a scope on an unaltered M54 some while ago:
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-rifles/model-54-22-hornet/
Since the scope would interfere with the movement of the bolt handle of the M54, the scope EITHER has to be mounted high enough for the bolt to pass underneath (like this):
OR… The scope has to be mounted far enough forward for the bolt to pass behind the ocular bell. The G&H side mount was popular on the M54 for this reason, since the longer eye relief scopes like the Lyman Alaskan, Weaver G330, Noske, etc. could be positioned far enough forward. Of course a G&H mount means holes in the side of the receiver instead of on the bridge, so not an appealing option… 
As it happens, I have just about every Stith Install-It-Yourself mount made for the M54/70 (mounts were scope-specific), and none of them will work on an unmodified M54. Of the pre-war mounts, the one that comes closest is the Stith mount for the Weaver G330 that uses a 3/4″ front sleeve and 7/8″ rear ring that positions the ring on top of the adjustment turret. But it still doesn’t get the scope far enough forward for the M54. I did see, one time, where someone had modified a Stith mount to accomplish this feat:
BUT… Even this requires a short OAL scope like Clarence’s Noske. Otherwise the objective end of the scope cannot slide far enough into the sleeve in front to get the ocular bell that far forward. Someday I’m going to figure out a way to do this with (albeit modified) pre-war parts. But for now I’m still puzzled… 
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Regarding your other questions… While waiting for David’s book, did you find Loyd Thomsen’s article on “The Forgotten 54” in the Spring 2009 WACA magazine?
https://winchestercollector.org/magazines/200903/index.html
Your 1927 M54 would be a “1st standard rifle” with the slender Schnabel tipped stock and Nickel steel barrel that used a pinned front sight blade in the integral base (no provision for a sight hood). When these came with standard sights the barrel sight was a Lyman No. 6 sight with one fixed and one folding leaf. When they came with a factory-installed Lyman 48W receiver sight, the barrel sight was changed to a Lyman 6W with two folding leaves. So I suspect that the barrel sight on yours is original to the gun.
It wasn’t until the “NRA standard rifle” came out that they did away with the folding barrel sight on rifles equipped with the Lyman 48WJ receiver sight and replace it with a simple Lyman 12S blank.
This should be illustrated in the Thomsen article for you to compare with your rifle. If not, I have photos of on my computer at home so could post. Let me know… 
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Thanks ALL for your input. I did read the 2009 article a month or so ago but haven’t revisited. I think I will. I just find it odd that the receiver ring was tapped and the bridge wasn’t. I figured there had to be some sort of mounting system developed that it wouldn’t be such an endeavor to mount a scope. Not that I want to but curiosity got the cat.
Technically, the glass is always full; half liquid, half air....
WACA #10293
rwsem said
I just find it odd that the receiver ring was tapped and the bridge wasn’t. I figured there had to be some sort of mounting system developed that it wouldn’t be such an endeavor to mount a scope.
Not odd, thoughtless, or at the very least clear evidence of poor engineering judgment; which, unbelievably, was carried over even into the pre-war 70s. Evidently, the factory idea of the best way to mount a scope was that depicted above, which for the front mount uses a block driven into the rear-sight slot. Because the 54 was rushed into production (& shows it), this oversight might be forgiven IF it had not been carried over to M70s.
Please remember that scopes were not common prior to WW 2 and the depression occurred during the Model 54 production . You can thank Townsend Whelen for the stock change .. Rifles with the schnabel fore end are a delight to carry and are meant to be shot stand up as there is too much drop for benching the gun.Congratulations on finding one that has not been altered .
Hi Clarence-
Question for you… What year was the Redfield JR mount first marketed? As far as I can tell, it was the first mass produced “bridge type” scope mount readily available in the USA. I have a copy of the original Redfield brochure introducing the JR mount, but it’s not dated. The postage stamp on it dates to maybe mid-30’s??? That would place it during late M54 production (before M70), but not at the time the M54 was introduced in 1925. Do you have a good number for the intro date?
It seems to me that, as you said, at the time the M54 was designed the idea was to use the barrel dovetail and top receiver ring to mount a long tube scope. Since pre-war scopes were still considered unreliable, those wanting a low mount/low power/compact scope would most likely choose to go with a side mount that left the metallic sights unobstructed (nobody was thinking about “collector value” 90 years ago)…
It’s perhaps curious that the factory didn’t adopt a smooth drilled bridge before the “transition” M70 action of circa 1946, but IMHO given the state of scope development in the thirties and pre-war 40’s they were probably not willing to make a design change (drilled bridge) for one company’s (Redfield JR) product.
Corporate conservatism..
Wha’Cha’Think??? 
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
I’ll separate the steel from the wood and do a bit of cleaning this weekend. Great discussion- I appreciate all the information.
Technically, the glass is always full; half liquid, half air....
WACA #10293
Tom Sterr said
Please remember that scopes were not common prior to WW 2
Probably not “common,” owing to cost, but widely available, absolutely! Presume you’re talking about what we now call “hunting scopes,” as opposed to what we now call (erroneously)”target scopes,” those with external adjustments in the mounts.
More or less “modern” hunting scopes were made in many makes & varieties in Germany & Austria well before WWI, but few were imported into this country owing to cost, which included heavy import duties. But by the mid-twenties they were appearing in increasing numbers: in the 1928 Rifleman (earliest year I have readily available), Zeiss, Hensoldt, & Noske (German-American) scopes were advertised. B&M was advertising a very modern-looking bridge-mount, G&H was advertising it’s famous side-mount, & Western (which became Redfield) advertised a two-piece mount.
So scopes were not any kind of “unknown factor” when the 54 was being designed.
Louis Luttrell said
Hi Clarence-Question for you… What year was the Redfield JR mount first marketed? Lou
Junior cannot proceed his progenitor, which was a 2-pc mount called only the “Western Scope Mount.” It used, however, the same “dovetail” idea in the front mount, & was being advertised in the Rifleman by Oct, 1928. When the Junior first became available would require more ad-searching. Have always wondered why Redfield chose such a rather disparaging name as “Junior,” which suggests “not quite as good as” what came before. Both were available for some time.
As for the “trouble” of re-designing the 54 or 70…adding ONE screw hole in the bridge required the attention of an engineer?
November 7, 2015
Offline
Congrats on acquiring an important milestone in Winchester history, Ronald. I’m a big fan of the modern M70 and the 30-06 cartridge so a Model 54 like yours is quite interesting to me. IMHO the Model 54 does not need a scope but most modern shooters do. Let them buy modern rifles. I feel the Model 54 and many of the Winchester rimfire target rifles challenge us to become better shooters. A telescopic sight may allow us to wring the most accuracy out of a rifle but good iron sights wring the most out of the shooter and help us experience what it meant to be a “shooter” 80 or 100 years ago.
One of my regrets as a fan of the rifle is that I squandered my youth (and excellent vision) shooting scoped rifles. I only learned to appreciate barrel and receiver sights after presbyopia became a reality. I have discovered that peep sights are indeed amazing. A few years back I was able to repeatedly hit a target ( the Whittington Center buffalo at1123 yards) that I could not see through the sights with a rifle chambered in 45-90. You can do the same with your Model 54 without holding halfway up the mountain.
My point? Your Model 54 was not intended to be “scoped”, IMHO. It was, OTOH, one of the finest rifles to be had at the time.
Mike
1 Guest(s)
